In the Gardens of Castle Howard article, the bot has twice added implausible dates to website citations. I've reverted both occasions but should there not be a check that webpage dates are not earlier than the 1990s? Warofdreams talk 23:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed Added parksandgardens.org to list of websites that provide bogus dates. Such early dates are valid for many websites the re-produce works. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's crazy. I will add code to not add specific dates for things before 1900. Considering that a belief in precise dating is relatively new, and mulitple calendar systems, and the general published vs written vs date on the document issues. That is probably for the best. Even July 4 should be July 2, but no one cares. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Legend of 14 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

One other thing should also have happened here: When Citation bot converted this from a conference citation into a journal citation (a bad idea to do automatically in general but usually ok as a manual edit and ok this time; see #Converts conference citation to journal citation and changes title case) last November (Special:Diff/1256921655) it should have removed the url pointing to the conference version, to avoid having an internally inconsistent and garbled citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this is now fixed. I cannot reproduce this, and it is VERY odd. Sorry for being slow, but I am now a grandparent in the real world. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit replaced "publisher=The Last Magazine" with "work=THE LAST MAGAZINE". Maybe it scraped the website name from the web page, but I’m surprised it left it in CAPS. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{fixed}} with code that will stop this, even though I have no idea why this happened. I cannot reproduce. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

An exception to the dot removal rule. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Diff? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Special code add when journal title is "NetWorker". AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot has edited a reference to a journal paper changing a specific page number to the range of the whole paper (the page number happened to be the first page of the paper). This is wrong. I don't know if the bot just did this, or if there was intervention by an editor. This is the diff. "page=213" was changed to "pages=213–244". While the page number given could have been wrong, it's not up to a bot to decide that (possibly a human editor was involved in this decision, I can't know that). I comment that in this particular case I checked the reference, and the two points sourced by it in the WP article text were in the first page (213) of the paper.

<ref name= tay>{{cite journal| author= Peter J. Taylor| doi= 10.1007/BF00146987 | title= Technocratic Optimism, H.T. Odum, and the Partial Transformation of Ecological Metaphor after World War II| work= Journal of the History of Biology| volume= 21| number= 2| date= June 1988| page= 213}}</ref>
was changed to
<ref name= tay>{{cite journal| author= Peter J. Taylor| doi= 10.1007/BF00146987 | title= Technocratic Optimism, H.T. Odum, and the Partial Transformation of Ecological Metaphor after World War II| journal= Journal of the History of Biology| volume= 21| number= 2| date= June 1988| pages= 213–244 | pmid= 11621655 }}</ref>

with summary

Add: pmid, pages, journal. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Spinixster | Category:Schools of economic thought | #UCB_Category 69/95

It's standard for journal citations to give the full page range, not just the starting page. You can always specify the exact page with |pages=213–244 [213], or |page=213<!-- exact page-->, if it's particularly important to specify the exact page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

"Standard" (enforced) or just "customary"? If a specific statement in the WP article is supported on a particular page of a paper, following the reference (either to check it or to find out more) in a long article leads to waste of time. Does Citation Bot only replace a specific page by a range if it happens to be the first page, or always?

It would seem to me that if CB changes the page, it should change "page=213" to "pages=213-244 [213]". That is what the editor specified; it's not up to CB to second-guess a human editor. Pol098 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Pol. The bot should not change the sense of a citation that a human has added. If one page has been cited, the bot should not change that. I am increasingly disturbed by the bot's behaviour, it is in danger of becoming a net negative. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The bot only replaces the first page with a page range because it's an ambiguous situation where what's intended is unclear (and several tools just use the first page instead of full page range, with the material supporting the claim not on the first page). In the case of a page in the middle of the range, it's clear what the intent is, so it doesn't touch it. The bot's always done this since as far back as I can remember, this is not new behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, not a bug, thanks, sorry to waste your time. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Inonit: per MOS:CONFORM, we're allowed to change punctuation to our own house style (in fact, it should be adapted... without comment). Module:CS1 displays curly quotes as straight quotes anyway, so I agree there's very little value to this kind of edit, but it does comply with MOS guidance and is {{not a bug}}. Folly Mox (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I get the same, btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Something is seriously messed up with the toolserver infrastructure. Lots of networks stuff is not working.. I can run it just fine from my home machine. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add that I rebooted the bot, and the logs are spammed with all sorts of errors still. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Even the gadget API is giving "screw you sucka" errors. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the bot is back up and running as of today. Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I added source information in this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_colonization_of_northern_Afghanistan#:~:text=Early%20colonization,-British%20Army%20Colonel&text=Before%20the%201880s%2C%20they%20numbered,called%20Pashtunization%20in%20northern%20Afghanistan.

But URL is stating a problem. 2402:E280:3D48:133:1CB2:C834:72C:618F (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue - the bot is not expanding citations that previously it would have done. Ccferrie (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Concerns doi prefix 10.22323, mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)